HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 8 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
August 8, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford None
Dan McShane
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20 TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF ZONES
FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S, REVISE RV STANDARDS IN THE UR AND
RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE R, RF AND RC ZONES, AND
DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT ROBERTS WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S (AB2000 -215A)
Hoag stated she was disappointed in the veto by Executive Kremen. The
veto itself had very exact language talking about the fact that the description of
what they were planning to do was not consistent with the hearing notice. After
the veto, they received recommendations for changes that were counter to what
they were trying to do as a Council. They were trying to treat different areas
distinctly to match the kinds of uses that have historically been there, and to try to
accommodate people's needs in those areas while trying to protect the character of
those areas. Some of the recommendations went counter to the Council's intent.
It will come up at the evening's meeting.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
Hoag asked for clarification on issues forwarded from Matt Aamot.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated there was a concern about section
21.03.020(4) that subsections (c), (d), and (e) would conflict. The current
regulations require that, to qualify for the exemptions, one has to have frontage on
a public road. There is not a problem with subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (e)
says that no private access road shall serve more than four lots. Citizens have
expressed a concern that subsection (e) is contradictory because subsection (c)
says that there has to be access to a public road and subsection (e) says that one
could be on a private road. They do get into situations where one may have 20-
acre parcels divided into four lots, for example. There may be a winding road with
steep slopes that prohibit direct access to each lot. It may be appropriate in that
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
situation to have a private road that goes onto all the lots, so there is one entrance
onto the public road. Although it appears that there is a contradiction, there isn't a
real contradiction.
Hoag stated there is also a question of the clarity of the language regarding
the public roads. She read subsection (c), which is clear they are talking about
public roads, but subsection (d) talks about roads that could be interpreted as
private roads. They want them to all be public. She suggested a language change,
11...150 feet of frontage abutting maintained public collector or arterial publie
roads... 150 feet of frontage abutting maintained public minor, local, or general
access publie roads..."
Crawford asked if they should eliminate subsection (c). Subsections (d) and
(e) seem to cover it.
Hoag stated subsection (c) seemed to collect with subsection (e). Having
access to the road is different than fronting on a road. Aamot stated subsection (c)
is a different direction in policy, in that it has to be constructed to minimum road
standards. There are narrow public roads out there. In order to qualify for the
exemption, one has to front a public road that is up to the current road standards
for two -way traffic. If one is on a road that is narrower than the current standard,
it would disqualify a person from getting the exemption.
Hoag questioned how they solve the disagreement between subsections (c),
which says that all lots shall access onto public roads, and (e), which says that
private access to four lots is allowed. Aamot stated he talked to the Engineering
Department about this. Subsection (c) doesn't say direct access, it just says access
onto a public road. He thought the language was okay.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that is how his department
would interpret the code. He talked about it with Mr. Aamot. There are issues
currently of exemption applications on roads that are not to County standards.
Right now, they could do an exemption, but there is no review for where the access
would be to the road. Right now it says that would not have a private easement on
the exemption. Legislation would allow the exemption to happen, as well as the
easement to be placed.
Hoag questioned whether there is a difference between the wording "shall
have access onto" and "have access to." She questioned whether the term "having
access onto" implies that the access goes directly to the public road. Aamot stated
they could change the language to clarify it.
Hoag moved to amend section 21.03.020(4)(c), "...shall have access onto....
Crawford stated he didn't want anyone to interpret the language to mean
that they have to have the access directly.
McShane stated he wouldn't interpret it that way.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Hoag stated that once they put the word "have" in there, it is all right.
Aamot stated they could get more detailed. One has to meet all the conditions to
get an exemption. Subsection (d) requires frontage on a public road. It is
important that that be maintained. Otherwise there would be many lots that are
accessed by a private road that don't have road frontage. It would be a shift in
policy.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 21.03.020(4)(d), "...maintained public
collector or arterial publie roads... frontage abutting maintained public minor, local,
or general access public roads...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned why they are requiring 150 feet on a minimum of five acres.
Aamot stated that the dimensions don't work out on a rectangular lot, but the staff
has seen some interesting and creative lot configurations that aren't rectangular.
One may not be able to get down to 150 feet, but someone may need 270 feet of
road frontage on a minor street to make the lot configuration work. The
Engineering Division proposed the distinction between the minor and major roads,
which need at least 300 feet.
McShane referenced packet page 145 regarding the burdening of easements.
The Council received language from Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor,
regarding language changes. In the past, the language said that the owner may
specify the burdening. The Committee changed it so that the owner shall specify
the burdening. He thought they may need to change it back.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he sent an email and
spoke with each committee member on this topic. The department expressed
concern in terms of what that change means, on two levels. One concern was
about liability. Another concern pertains to staffing. As one on the staff tracks in
good faith the cumulative burdening of the easement, it is not an automatic task.
It takes some work to ascertain the extent to which an easement has been
burdened. There are staffing implications for that. Permit processing will take
additional time to accommodate that additional search. He provided the committee
members with language that addressing liability concerns, primarily stating that the
County, by requiring a mandatory specification of the burdening, does not increase
its liability in case of errors or omissions.
Hoag stated they had this discussion. It is very important that the burdening
of an easement be spelled out. The change in the language was a very good
recommendation. She supported keeping the change. It's not okay for someone
who is purchasing an easement to withhold information about an intended use of
that easement. She appreciated the concern about the County's liability. The
language that was recommended is important in just specifying that the burden of
proof should be on the applicant. When the applicant wants to make a
development, he or she should prove that the easement is sufficient to serve that
development for the purposes that they plan to use it for. She asked that language
be written to make that language change. She questioned whether her concern
was addressed in Mr. Gibson's email. Gibson stated he kept her concern in mind
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
when he suggested language. A practical consideration is the question of who is
going to make the developer, who is seeking to subdivide property into a plat,
identify the specific burdening language. He questioned how that occurs and
whether it is to be a staff member to determine how specific the burdening is
supposed to be. They may be required, or it may be in their best interest, to grant
easements for utilities and easements. Their intent is to get the subdivision and
platting done. People who come along later want to understand precisely what it
was that was in the mind of that developer, but the developer may not have an
interest in being specific up front. He questioned whether staff is supposed to force
the developer to make specific language. He questioned what is expected of staff
in that regard.
Hoag stated she didn't believe staff is involved in that. The wording says the
owner shall specify the burdening of the easement, and it provides examples of
burdening. An easement states that a certain number of ingress and egress trips.
If that is exceeded, they would have to go back and renegotiate a new easement.
It is not up to staff to decide whether there is enough information. The language
only says that the County wants the developer to specify what he or she wants to
do with the easement. Whatever he or she specifies, that is what he or she is
entitled to do. If they didn't specify the use, they don't have a right to it and would
have to renegotiate the use. That doesn't put the staff in the middle of the
situation.
Middleton stated he is torn on the issue. On one hand, there are instances in
which, had the burdening been identified, it would have solved many headaches.
At the same time, if they establish the burden on the face of the plat and want to
change it later, they have to do a new plat and file it.
Hoag questioned whether the easement has to be renegotiated.
Middleton stated a new plat has to be filed. Everyone within the confines of
that short -plat has to sign. If any one person doesn't sign, they are out of luck.
Hoag questioned what is involved in filing a new plat. Middleton stated it
involves full review. It is an amendment to the plat. There has to be a new mylar
done. The time it takes depends on the type of amendments. It has to have staff
review.
Hoag questioned whether that would occur if one wants to use the easement
for more than what they obtained the easement. Middleton stated that is correct.
Hoag stated that is appropriate.
Middleton stated the issue about who would decide whether the burdening is
specific would have to ultimately be with the chair of the Technical Committee, who
signs the short -plat. Currently that is he. If someone violates the burdening, it
would be a civil matter that they would have to solve amongst themselves.
Hoag stated the County is not specifying the number of trips in and out of an
easement. Middleton stated they questioned whether the County has to enforce it.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Hoag stated the County doesn't have to enforce it. It is between the person
granting the easement and the person who got the easement. Middleton stated he
agreed, and that is the argument he would make. However, he didn't know what
that final decision may be.
Gibson stated Mr. Middleton might not be aware of the language provided to
the committee members, which indicates that the inclusion of this requirement does
not produce additional duties by the County.
Hoag read the language into the record. It clearly states that any issue of
burdening is between the applicant and the grantor of the easement. This language
change was suggested because everyone ends up in court when it is not clear what
the easement is for. She would like to avoid that. It seems that, with the language
that has been suggested, there is a change that would help all the way around.
What is expected will be clearer going into the agreement. Both parties would
know where they are at.
Middleton stated it would not preclude someone from filing an instrument,
separate from the short -plat that establishes the burdening of the easement, which
could be amended later without amending the face of the plat.
Gibson agreed that was conceivable. It is an attractive idea on the surface.
McShane moved to add the suggested language at the end of 21.04.080(3),
"The owners of the subservient estates are not entitled to rely upon the County to
enforce the limitations of the easements so granted, and no cause of action shall lie
against the County for errors or omissions occurring in connection with the
administration of, or issuance of permits for development of properties that burden
the easements referred to herein." This language would also apply to the long -plat
section 20.05.070(3), packet page 154, and binding site plan section 20.07.070(3),
packet page 167.
Hoag questioned whether the language in the long -plat and binding site plan
sections are identical. Aamot stated he believed they are the same.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding Title 21
as amended.
Hoag discussed packet page 152, sections 21.05.030(5)(a)(i) and (5)(a)(ii).
It talks about the time periods and expiration periods. In one instance, the Council
felt the language required the Council to grant an extension, even though it wanted
to bring the long -plat up to current standards. She asked staff to give the
committee a summary of that to make certain that is what they are actually doing.
She questioned whether they are requiring the development be up to certain
standards if any extensions beyond five years are granted. Aamot stated yes. The
Council has discretion, but it can impose new development standards rules and
regulations after a five -year period.
that.
Hoag stated language in the middle of subsection (ii) allows the Council to do
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford discussed packet page 145, section 21.04.090. He questioned
whether there was a discussion about the Rural one unit per two acres (R2) and
that this section excludes R2 zones unless they have public water supply.
McShane stated they discussed it. His concern was that R2 zones have a lot
of homes. If everyone depends on a private well, there would be a lot of
overlapping between the homes. The intent is to avoid the risk to people drinking
water. At that kind of density, there should be a shared system.
Crawford questioned the number of R2 zones in the county. Aamot stated it
is not as much as they would think. He didn't have the amount with him. In the
long -plat section, they put in language that one could have a private well as long as
the number of clustered lots does not exceed four. The issue with overlapping well
areas was addressed. Short -plats are four lots or less by definition. They didn't
have to put that language in. They could have a Group B public system developed
between neighboring property owners. The local Health Department could approve
most of those. They have some ongoing testing and monitoring for coliform and
nitrates.
Crawford questioned whether a well could be installed on a two -acre lot in R2
zoning. Aamot stated that is correct.
Crawford questioned whether that would be allowed once this legislation is
passed. Aamot stated it relates to dividing land. It doesn't pertain to existing lots.
Hoag stated they had a lengthy discussion about six -packs a month or two
ago. She questioned whether that was resolved so the language does not allow
six -packs for subdivisions. Aamot stated they did not. The language specifically
allows six -pack wells. On packet page 155, section 21.05.080, language says that
a public water supply available for every subdivision, with exceptions. The number
one exception is for six - packs. The state Attorney General issued a statement that
a single development could not have multiple public water sources if it exceeds the
5,000 gallons per day exemption limit. It is state law. The County's local attorney
did not agree with that ruling. The state Department of Ecology is litigating that
issue.
Hoag stated the people in the county are going to lose the exempt wells that
they have if the County allows exempt wells to be used for six - packs. The state
Department of Ecology (DOE) is going to go after them, and they will lose the
exempt wells that they have right now. The water law that was proposed in the
legislature went after exempt wells and was very restrictive. That was because
they are abusing it and using six -packs to do subdivisions.
Hoag moved to amend language to section 21.05.080, "A public water
supply...Department, provided that usage does not exceed 5,000 gallons per day,
per subdivision." Exemptions are supposed to be for uses less than 5,000 gallons
per day. Anything more than that should have a water right.
Dawson questioned the average usage of a family per day.
Hoag stated it is around 300 to 400 hundred gallons.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Dawson stated she believed it was around 900 gallons per day.
Hoag questioned whether her specific language "per subdivision" refers to
the long -plat that is being filed. Aamot stated it is.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated the same issue comes up in binding site plans also.
Hoag questioned how large binding site plans are. Aamot stated binding site
plans are used for mobile home parks or RV parks, for example, where the
developer is creating multiple living space.
Hoag stated she would want the same language for binding site plans.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag moved to amend language in section 21.07.080, packet page 167, "
For mobile home parks... Department, provided that it does not exceed 5,000
gallons per day, per subdivision."
Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shores Road, questioned whether they want to add
language that says, "5,000 gallons, or more if there is a water right permit." What
the committee has just done is allow only less than 5,000 gallons. If a person has
a valid water right permit issued by the state, he or she is limited to 5,000 gallons.
Hoag stated they are working on sections that address multiple public water
supplies.
Isaacson stated that a plat with one well with 50 hookups wouldn't be
circumventing the law if there was a water right permit. There are a lot of people
who are waiting for water right permits and have received them to do a plat with a
well, especially in mobile home and recreational vehicle (RV) parks. All the water
right and withdraw permits generally have a maximum use amount specified.
McShane stated they are dealing with the exceptions. That implies to him
that a public water supply would be one with a permit. Aamot stated the language
is singular, "A public water supply..." and could be interpreted to mean one well.
Hoag stated a public water supply doesn't mean there is only one well.
There are many public water systems that have multiple wells.
McShane stated the purpose of the language they've already voted on was to
avoid a situation of an 18 -lot subdivision with three wells to avoid having to get a
water right.
Hoag moved to amend language in sections 21.05.080 and 21.07.080,
"...Department, provided that it does not exceed 5,000 gallons per day, per
subdivision unless the applicant holds a valid water right to withdraw more."
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane discussed soil testing for contaminated soil in areas of former row
crop usage. He questioned what happened with that. Aamot stated it did not get
into the ordinance. He was waiting for language from Councilmember McShane.
McShane stated there was a concern about what the person staffing the desk
would handle for review. He has ideas on coming up with a map that staff could
use. Someone still has to do the work of going back through old aerial
photographs, but it shouldn't be a big deal to do. The proposed language should be
added to the section requiring additional information on packet page 158, section
21.05.130, regarding the soils and /or geological report.
Crawford questioned whether it may be required or whether it would be
mandatory.
McShane stated it may be required. He wanted language that called
intention to what that report would specifically entail, so someone going through
the checklist would know what to look for. He would come up with the specific
language and bring it forward.
Motion to recommend Title 21 as amended, including the language that
Councilmember McShane would bring regarding soils testing, to the full Council
carried unanimously,
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO REVISE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS
ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADD A NEW CATEGORY OF "RURAL
BUSINESS" TO THE CODE (AB2000 -251)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
this ordinance comes to the Council from the Planning Commission in response to
the County Council, which initiated this last year. When the County Council
initiated it, it asked the Planning Commission to look more closely at consistency
between the various zoning districts regarding number of employees, lot size, and
how the approval process was. Currently, the County regulations are all over the
board. Some of them are administrative, some are conditional, and some are
outright permitted. There is a different number of maximum employees in each
zoning district, with no maximum in the agriculture zone and no maximum building
size in the agriculture zone.
Hoag questioned whether they were also concerned about some of the uses
that were being allowed as cottage industries that should be zoned in heavy
industrial areas. Goodwin stated that was correct. Other issues were complaints
from people about retail uses that generated a lot of traffic and manufacturing uses
that generated noise or fumes. They wrote a staff report and made
recommendations to tighten that up to make a consistent approval process that
would be administrative approval for cottage industries with a low number of
employees, with conditional use only with a larger number of employees, and a
permitted use for the home occupations. They also recommended changes limiting
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
to retail sales to products manufactured onsite and limiting manufacturing to small
handcrafted items or natural resources grown in the area. A summary of the
changes is on packet page 212. The Planning Commission looked at the staff
recommendation and had a public hearing where a large number of people, all
owners of businesses, attended. They wanted less restrictive rules for home
occupations. There were no people at the hearing that wanted to limit
manufacturing, retail sales, or the building size. The majority of the people at that
meeting, and the meeting was packed with people, all wanted larger buildings, less
standards, and an easier approval process. They didn't even want to have to meet
fire and safety codes. That is exactly the opposite of what the Council requested
the Planning Commission look at. After hearing the testimony, the result of the
Planning Commission is an ordinance that is far more liberal than what the County
Council had in mind and possibly contrary to the Growth Management Act, by
allowing 10,000 square feet businesses with up to ten employees in rural areas.
The Planning Commission also recommended that they allow manufacturing of
products up to 10,000 pounds. The public was talking about boat trailers, boats,
welding equipment. It eliminated the restriction on retail sales. It broadened it
enough that it is anything related to tourism, which could include fast food. The
letters that the committee received today reflected more of what the Council was
thinking about. She wished the Planning Commission had received that input. The
ordinance may have been different. She encouraged the Council to have a public
hearing. There is a limited amount of time, and they cannot change the proposed
ordinance unless they have a public hearing. She specifically asked the Council to
look at the Rural Business, which is the new category that was added, and think
about whether the County really wants 10,000 square foot manufacturing buildings
with ten employees on a five -acre lot in the rural areas. It requires further
attention.
Hoag read the concerns expressed in letters from the City of Lynden and the
state Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) (on
file). The City of Lynden disapproved of the proposed amendment. It refers to the
Growth Management Act and the County's Comprehensive Plan strongly supporting
growth in urban areas. It was concerned about services outside of the urban areas
and with the effects of out - migration and the difficulty for cities to maintain
expensive, higher levels of service as demanded. The CTED letter was concerned
with mitigation of the changes. It suggested that the Council wait until the strategy
from the Whatcom Regional Council has been developed. Another letter from CTED
expressed concern about allowing rural businesses in the Agriculture and Rural
Forestry zone. They also recommend that cottage industries in the Agricultural
zone should be agriculturally - related.
Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, stated he and his wife moved
to the rural area of the county 20 years ago. There have been threats to the rural
quality of life over the years. There is a threat today. Rural means absence of
urban style business. Rural agriculture means farming. Rural forestry means
forest management. In 1990 the state Growth Management Act recognized the
threat to out -of- control growth and laid down the basis for defining land use and
rural development by way of the Comprehensive Plan, which says it requires
appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and
are consistent with rural character. The Planning Commission is proposing a new
concept for characterizing the rural zones. It encourages the invasion of business
and industry into rural districts. It flies into the face of the Comprehensive Plan's
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
goals and policies. He asked that the Planning Committee accept a proposal for
revision. Eliminate rural business as a category since it is an urban and industrial
operation. Even with a Conditional Use Permit, violations are likely to occur, as are
lawsuits against the County. Revise the cottage industry category to a conditional
use, with hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Require at least five
acres, screening, and reduce sign size by 50 percent. Cottage industries requiring
greater latitude could locate in commercial and industrial locations.
Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, the rural lifestyle means escaping
the urban environment. It is the absence of urban uses. It is useful to promote the
rural economy, but not at the expense of the rural ambience. He has not received
as many contacts as this about any issue since he has been off the County Council.
People who are beginning to understand the effect of what this will do to the rural
lifestyle are becoming alarmed. A building size of 10,000 square feet and a
maximum of ten employees is going too far in a rural area. In any event, allowing
business activities to go on until 9:00 p.m. in a rural residential area is very
destructive of any decent family enjoying its home.
Warren Shag, Bellingham, stated this is a poor proposal. It jeopardizes the
property rights of neighbors. The industries pose serious problems to the rights of
the neighbors. The ordinance violates the spirit and the letter of the County
Comprehensive Plan. They don't spread industry in a hodge -podge manner. They
centralize and localize it in cities and towns. They have to maintain the rural
character of the rural districts. That is what the Comprehensive Plan and Growth
Management Act tells them. They have to conserve agriculture, forestry, the
natural landscape, and peace and quiet. This is what most county residents want.
There is an obligation to the generations that come after them. He asked that this
proposal be denied. He was against any and all compromises on this issue. This is
about doing the right thing.
David Davidson, City of Sumas, stated the City's concerns were similar to
those of the City of Lynden. They are struggling to revitalize parts of downtown
and the industrial area. This ordinance opens up the potential for businesses in
Sumas to move out of town. There aren't that many businesses in town that are in
buildings larger than 10,000 square feet. A bulk of the businesses could go out to
the Agriculture zone if services were available. Aside from the concept of the
Growth Management Act, there is specific language in the ordinance that could
have used more thought. For example, a catalog or e- commerce sale that is
allowed in the proposed ordinance sounds like a warehouse that does not
manufacture anything onsite and that has nothing to do with the Agricultural zone.
The ordinance mentions specific standards related to noise, by referencing a
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). This is a situation where they could create
more noise in the Agricultural zone by one of these businesses that is allowed in an
industrial area in a city, all night long and without a provision for reduction at night.
He urged the Council to take the ordinance back to the drawing board.
Fenton Wilkinson, 7101 Goodwin Road, Everson, that as the ordinance is
written, it would be subject to numerous successful legal challenges. It is a
violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. It is void for
ambiguity and lack of clarity. It allows a rezone of an Agricultural parcel to a heavy
industrial parcel by the administrator without a public hearing. For the people who
worried about the large building allowance and the noise hours, the proposal is
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
worse. There is no limitation on the manufacturing activity. The 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. limitation is only for customers to come to the location. The manufacturing
could go on 24 hours per day and seven days per week. The 10,000 square foot
limit is only for new structures in an Agricultural zone. A 40,000 square foot barn
could be converted to a manufacturing facility. They need to go back to square
one. He is more concerned about what is not being said. He questioned why they
are even addressing this. The only comment that touches on what is not being said
was testimony at the February 24 Planning Commission meeting by Doug Smith on
East Bakerview Road. Mr. Smith complimented the commission on trying to
facilitate better use of economically disadvantaged farmland in the area. The
County developed an economic developed strategy that addresses the needs of the
natural resource industries. It is in the Action Plan, chapter seven, number four.
They have the cart before the horse. They have to acknowledge that the farmers
have a problem, but they have to develop a strategy that helps the farmers make
money as farmers. This ordinance helps farmers make money by going into
manufacturing or subdividing their land. There are places in the County that claim
to be home businesses, but people don't really live there. There is no enforcement
for that. He suggested sending the ordinance back to the Planning Department and
have it come forward as part of an overall strategy that would address the needs of
the resource industries. The ordinance allows a farmer to cut off a five -acre piece
of property and sell it as a manufacturing facility. They are creating a conditional
use for rural business, in section 20.80.760. Item one says the minimum parcel
size is five acres. The minimum parcel size in the Agricultural zone is 40 acres,
with an exception for a parcel used for a conditional use.
Hoag questioned whether that is a section that is proposed to remain in or be
deleted. Middleton stated that language is in there currently. He didn't know
whether it is proposed for modification. Mr. Wilkinson is correct, if this ordinance
passes.
Sharon Digby, 4076 Purnell Road, Van Zandt, stated she talked to the Fire
District #16 chief and assistant chief. They weren't aware of this. She described
the ordinance to them. They will comment more formally at a later date. They
were both opposed to the rural business section from a fire protection standpoint.
She read Comprehensive Plan policy 2EE -4.
Holly O'Neill, 3231 Hillside Road, Deming, stated the proposal would work
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan goals. It will put the Agricultural lands at
greater risk and increase urban sprawl. She supported the first proposal that they
started with. The rural business aspect needs to go back to the drawing board.
Her vision was that the communities would be able to centralize in the small towns
along Highway 9, and not get spread out further. She encouraged the portion of
the ordinance that allows retail and signage. They need to find ways for rural areas
to be more economically viable. She suggested linking the language so the kinds of
businesses in Agricultural zones are linked to agricultural endeavors and the
forestry businesses are linked to forestry endeavors. The public hearing process is
a fine process for neighbors to talk and build the community.
Darlene Del Boca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, read her letter into the record (on
file) that stated she was opposed to the ordinance.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Del Boca continued to read her letter into the record.
Virginia Naef, 5420 Saxon Road, stated they need to throw out the Planning
Commission's ordinance and begin from the beginning. One concern is the
conversion of the conditional use category to a de facto administrative approval
that would not incorporate public comment. No one has mentioned illumination of
signs. Under ordinary circumstances, there should not be any illumination of signs
for cottage and home -based industry. She was vehemently opposed to the new
category of rural business. The infrastructure is there to allow for a diversified,
low -key business economy within the agricultural zone, which is where she lives.
The development pressure on Whatcom County is from all over. They cannot
sustain much more noise, visual blight, traffic, or crime in the rural areas. The
development of cottage industry should be tightened up instead of liberalized.
Gary Reed, 5651 Mission Road, stated it is not clearly defined what a
business is. Almost everyone who has a house has a computer and carries a
briefcase. This ordinance is written in such a way that everything requires a
permit. No one is building Boeing aircraft out there with two employees.
Everything but the rural businesses allows two employees or less. That in itself is
restrictive. The internet commerce is talking about commerce where a product
neither arrives nor leaves the property. Bookkeeping functions are prevalent out
there. There are a lot of builders whose wives keep the books because they can't
afford to build downtown. That also falls under this category. It should be totally
exempt. There are some problems with the language itself. The Rural zone could
allow a building within five feet of a property line. The fact that a business goes
from two to three employees then requires a 100 -foot setback. There are many
five -acre parcels that are 200 feet wide and wouldn't accommodate any building.
They don't want to start setting up a situation in which this ordinance overrides the
underlying zoning, in terms of setbacks.
Hoag stated a different use requires a different setback. Reed stated they
are changing the zoning requirements through this type of ordinance. It would be
very confusing. He questioned the limitation of using only 25 percent of a
structure. It is unrealistic and unenforceable. He questioned what is trying to be
accomplished. If they tighten it up, there won't be any start -up companies and
small businesses. The overall view may have to be revisited.
Hoag questioned whether it is correct that all employee maximums are
limited to two, except for the new rural business designation. Under cottage
industries, it says that the number of employees shall be consistent with the
standards of each district. She questioned whether that is always only two
employees. Goodwin stated they look at each district and some of them allow four
employees.
Crawford stated that home occupations allow two employees.
Goodwin stated a home occupation is always two employees. A cottage
industry is within a shop or a garage and goes up to four employees. A rural
business could go up to ten employees. That is when they have to have the 100 -
foot setback.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford questioned whether there was any testimony about Eliza Island.
Goodwin stated there was not.
Crawford questioned whether there was any discussion about why they are
allowing home occupations on Eliza Island. Goodwin stated they allowed it in every
residential zone. There was no discussion about Lummi Island either.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Department has received any
response from anyone on Eliza Island regarding this. Goodwin stated she doubted
that anyone on Eliza Island knows anything about this.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, Lynden, submitted suggestions for changes
to the ordinance (on file). Mr. Wilkinson raised the most important issue about the
rural business designation. It becomes an overlay zone in effect. Use is not limited
to just industry. Commercial uses are also allowed. The ordinance allows business
in the vast majority of the county without the regulations and restrictions that the
Commercial and Light Industry zones have. The rural business designation would
be another nail in the coffin of the agricultural industry. Already, zoning protects
only 2/3 of the necessary land base. Mining is allowed in 100 percent of the
agricultural zone. Allowing business would be the last nail. This does not in any
way conform to the Comprehensive Plan or the Growth Management Act. It is the
exact opposite of the Growth Management Act's intent. It would permit and
encourage junky commercial strips all along the major arterial roads. Traffic has to
be what is normal for the zone or the street that the business is on. The Hannegan
Road is a big business street. Any number of vehicles could come to the business,
and the Hannegan Road would quickly become a strip like the Guide Meridian. It
would be harder for businesses to survive in the urban areas because the rural
business would not have the development costs or the taxes that urban businesses
have. It will create a need for services, such as roads, fire, police, power, and
waste disposal. That issue is not dealt with in this ordinance. He didn't deal with
water and waste in his suggested revisions, but every one of those areas needs to
deal with making sure there are adequate services. A residential septic system
may be inadequate for some business. The goal of the re -write should have
included how to direct rural businesses into the hamlets, small towns, and cities in
the County, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Send this back to the
Planning staff and hold it until the economic development plan for the agricultural
and rural zones is developed. It would make sense for this ordinance to come out
of that plan, not before it and compromise any future planning.
Goodwin suggested that the Council not refer the ordinance back to the
Planning Commission, who has several members that feel strongly about this. They
would come up with a similar draft. They are not likely to come up with something
much more restrictive. She also didn't recommend leaving the ordinance the way it
is. There is need for changes. She suggested reviewing the original staff
recommendation, beginning on packet page 217. They might find that to be closer
to what the Council was looking for. She suggested having a public hearing to
rewrite the ordinance, or send it back with very clear direction about what they
want. There are many other items before the committee and the Council, so she
didn't think that they have time to spend rewriting this ordinance if they are going
to get all the other things done before the end of the year. The Council could have
a public hearing, and table this until after they get the other items done.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated they are going to have work sessions to catch up. It doesn't
work well to discuss an item, become aware of all the possible problems, and then
table it until later when they have to begin again from the beginning because they
don't remember where they were. People refer to commercial strips along the
Guide and other locations. It is not clear what that does in terms of traffic
management and getting people to use public transportation. When she went to
Europe and looked at how they manage their land, their farmland is clearly
farmland. The only thing out there is a barn and a house. The businesses are in
the city. One can drive his or her car into the city, park it, and go everywhere by
bus or train. The way they are trying to move with smart development is toward
that model. This ordinance would move them in the opposite way from that model.
People would have to drive all over the county to get what they need. In terms of
long -term policy on where they want to go and what the need to do, they need to
keep that in mind.
Crawford stated there are four versions of this in the packet. He assumed
the version beginning on packet page 187 was the version that came from the
Planning Commission. He questioned the other versions. Goodwin stated those are
revised staff reports based on the direction given by the Planning Commission.
After they gave the direction about what they wanted, the staff rewrote the
ordinance, which is also in the packet. The original one is on packet page 217. The
revised staff report begins on packet page 230.
Crawford stated this was proposed to the Planning Commission on February
16, 2000. They have a meeting, and then a revision came back on May 2, 2000.
Goodwin stated that was correct. There was much public testimony. The Planning
Commission's original hearing was well- advertised by several Planning
Commissioners who put notices up to drum up support for people to come to the
hearing and testify. Their advertising was directed toward the people they wanted
to hear from. They didn't get a well - balanced testimony at that hearing.
Hoag stated the February 16 draft begins on packet page 211. Goodwin
stated that was correct. The actual text begins on packet page 217.
Hoag stated she was not interested in sending it back to the Planning
Commission. She wanted to tighten it up the way the Council originally asked for.
If they need to do more to encourage economic development in resource areas,
they could wait until the plan comes forward. The committee would discuss it.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY CHAPTER 20.04.030 INTERPRETATION AND
CONFLICT (AB2000 -253)
This item was held in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY UR -MX ZONING TEXT
REGARDING COMMERCIAL CENTERS, BUILDING SETBACKS, THE
CALCULATIONS OF THE PERCENT ALLOWABLE MULTI - FAMILY
STRUCTURES AND TO PROVIDE FOR SIGN REGULATIONS IN THIS
ZONE (AB2000 -254)
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
This item was held in committee.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 20.92.210, GRANTING THE HEARING
EXAMINER THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE COORDINATED WATER
SYSTEM PLAN APPEALS (AB2000 -284)
This item was held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20 TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF ZONES
FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S, REVISE RV STANDARDS IN THE UR AND
RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE R, RF AND RC ZONES, AND
DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT ROBERTS WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S (AB2000 -215A)
Middleton stated he brought forward concerns when he heard the RV
ordinance was going to be vetoed. He set up a graph on the new changes. It
appears that Point Roberts was more liberal.
Hoag stated that is purposely so.
Middleton stated that is what he wanted to know.
Hoag stated they wanted it different due to the historical use.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2000, Page 15